Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 25, 2014 6:30pm-7:01pm PDT

6:30 pm
or two supervisors at the committee level with regard to specifically the digital advertising which has i believe always in the current contract as well as an increase in the number of wraps that would be allowed under this new contract. the current contract allows 15. the new contract would allow 15. but would also give me the discretion to add up to 30 in total. but the reason we included this, i think supervisor breed said it very well, and i thank her for her leadership and sponsorship on this, was to provide flexibility -- >> i'm sorry, mr. reiskin. my question was really around what was the effort around negotiationses around the titan contract because it was really clear what my position was on the wraps and on the digital arts. i didn't want to be any wraps at all, but certainly wanted to see it come down from 30 to 15. that didn't happen. i understand we're trying to build flexibility in your budget and i've been very supportive of that. i've actually helped to get revenue into the city in large
6:31 pm
amounts through first the real estate transfer tax increase that was done in 2010 and then making sure that we had a revenue generating gross receipts tax. those monies that have come in have actually enabled muni to increase its baseline support from the general fund. and, so, i've been really making sure that we can actually have the support for muni through raising revenue. in this case we're talking about $325,000 that is or potentially $800,000 that could be what we could bring in from having the wraps. but i'm not hearing that there was any real effort to forego those funds or forego the wraps to negotiate them out nor the digital ads. could you talk about what had happened in those negotiationses? >> okay, sure. through the president, and i do appreciate those efforts since i know there is a lot of larger context around this contract, i thought i would provide some as well. but to answer your specific question after the committee
6:32 pm
hearing when we had that feedback, we went back to the contractor to see what they would be amenable to doing. without having to renegotiate the contract. they were amenable to eliminating the video, which we have included, as supervisor breed said. they were also amenable to bringing it down to removing the additional 15 wraps. because we feel that that flexibility will be helpful for us, we left that in currently and if it's the will of the board of supervisors to bring down that 30 number to something as low as 15, that's something we can do here today. something beyond that would require renegotiation of the contract. >> so, you're willing to go down to 15 total wraps and have the digital ads removed? >> the contractor is willing to do that. we're willing to do that if that's the direction of the majority of the board. >> okay, i appreciate that.
6:33 pm
>> supervisor mar. >> yeah, i wanted to thank mr. reiskin for explaining that. i definitely would like to see the contract revised to keep it at the status quo up to 15. i know that you as the executive director with discretion to go up to 30 or even 20, i know that you would always communicate with this board, knowing the concerns. but i would like to see it kept at 15. i'm really appreciative of the amendments already made with eliminating the digital -- the language on the digital advertising and also just even taking a good faith effort to track complaints that might come in about the wraps within the city. i appreciate that, but i'm not willing to support the existing contract unless it's kept at the status quo or there is some adjusting given the concerns raised by -- i don't think it was just one or two, there were several people from the budget
6:34 pm
committee that raised concerns besides myself. but i'm appreciative that there is some sensitivity to our concerns. i wanted to thank maiello hanke from sf beautiful and harvey milk club for coming to speak and others to raise similar concerns i share with supervisor avalos as well. so, i would like to propose that the contract be amended to keep it at the status quo, at 15. so, i would like to make that motion to eliminate that 30 -- the language on 30 and keep it at 15. >> i'd like to ask our deputy city attorney given this is a contract, technically how should we go about expressing the perspective of the board with regards to this number? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the board doesn't have the authority to amend the contract. >> that's what i thought. >> by motion. if the mta submits a new version of the contract, the board can vote to accept that contract into the file and then ultimately vote on the resolution.
6:35 pm
so, the board can't be amending the contract. i understand from mr. reiskin that he is interested in hearing the will of the board and would come in with potentially some contract amendments that the board could consider and go up or down. >> is that something will reiskin could articulate today and a commitment to the board so we can make a decision on this? is that the process or are you suggesting it needs to be written contract amendments? >> mr. reiskin could come to the board today and say, here is the contract that we have essentially negotiated with the other party that we are proposing to the board to approve, and the board could approve that today. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. mr. reiskin, what would this mean in terms of the difference in what we can potentially walk away with financially from this particular contract if we were to amend it? >> i want to ask gail stein,
6:36 pm
our contract manager, to give you that detail. >> gail stein from the mta. as long as there are 15 wraps in the contract, the contract will pay us $325,000 for each year of the contract guaranteed. to the degree that there are more than that, we would pick up any additional revenue through the 65% revenue share. so, there is not an additional guarantee that we would see that money. and in fiscal year 2012-13, the contractor paid us more than $1.1 million over the minimum annual guarantee and about two third of that was due to wraps with windows. >> and based on what we have in term of a guarantee, it's about $30 million. will that guarantee change as a result of reducing the number of vehicles? >> the guarantee without that would not change. it would be -- the numbers that you have before you, if it was lower than 15, it would be less -- you would subtract 325,000
6:37 pm
for each year. so, the guarantee does not change above 15. >> i'm not certain if i'm clear on that, but i -- excuse me? >> if i may through the chair, it's the up side potential that changes. so, the guarantee is for the contract plus up to 15 wraps. if we authorize more wraps, we share in that revenue. as you heard, the up side in a previous year was pretty significant and a lot of that due to the wrap. so, there's up side potential that we would be foregoing should the number be lowered between 30 and 15. below 15, that would change the guarantee and that's something that we would want to renegotiate. >> above 15 could mean substantially more revenue? >> right. so, anything above 15 we share in the up side potential of and, really, the market would
6:38 pm
drive how much that revenue would be. >> how many buses he do we have in our city completely? >> so, we have a little more than 800 buses and 151 light rail vehicles so close to a thousand vehicles. >> so, we have close to a thousand vehicles and we're talking about potentially 15 to 30 vehicles? >> that's correct. >> okay. so, i just think we should leave the contract as-is. at this time i'm not prepared to support reducing the number. i'm prepared to move it forward. my desire mostly with the contract has to do with trade-offs, as i said, and generating sufficient revenue to cover what we expect to be dealing with as it relates to transportation in our city. no, i'm not really a fan of many of the decisions that have been made with mta without necessarily their outreach and consulting members of the board and having a discussion about some of those. but in this particular case i'm willing to stand behind mta, support the contract as-is, and
6:39 pm
move it forward. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. thank you, mr. reiskin and your staff. i do support the motion by supervisor mar. and i do have, and i understand and respect where supervisor breed is coming from. i do think, though, that keeping the contract where it has been makes sense. i do have a question for the city attorney, though, through the chair. maybe i misunderstood what he said. i understand that the board cannot amend the contract, but the board should be able to amend the resolution authorizing the contract, shouldn't we? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the resolution effectively is the document that approves the contract. so, the board could amend the resolution to reflect what is in the contract certainly. i don't believe the issues that the board is discussing right now, the wraps, the digital media, are even mentioned in
6:40 pm
the resolution itself. >> my point is this. could the board amend this resolution to approve the contract with the understanding that the approval is contingent upon certain terms being in there, like including making sure that the number of buses remains at 15? couldn't the board do that? >> the board can only vote up or down on the contract that the mta offers to it. >> the board providing sort of the authority for the mta to enter into a type of contract, right? is there something that prevents the board from doing that? >> if the mta comes to you and says, here's the contract we have with the conditions that you gave, you can approve that contract. the board does not have the authority to say, here are the contract terms that we want and that we're approving, even
6:41 pm
though the mta has not negotiated those terms. the board's authority under the charter is just limited in that respect. >> i don't know, i don't know what that's necessarily -- you know, the way i see it, i think it's actually the same thing. it's sort of a different way of doing it. it's doing it before the fact as opposed to after the fact, but i understand. thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm reluctantly prepared to vote in favor. if i have a guarantee from mr. reiskin that the cab -- the bus route ads will be capped at 15 and we already have digital arts ads taken out. so, if that's what mta can say they can do, my vote -- i can support. mr. reiskin, you mentioned that was a possibility. >> through the chair, excuse me.
6:42 pm
i concur with supervisor campos. it's kind of a semantic defense. i'm willing to accept whatever the majority of the board supports. if it's 30, that's what i recommend. if it's 25 or some other number down as low as 15, willing to accept that if that's where the majority of the board is. >> supervisor cohen. >> i'd just like to finish, a question for mr. givner. i'm not clear what the best way to communicate that is. we have a resolution which we he really can't amend. there is a contract that is amenable to whatever we vote on, but we can't -- what can we actually vote on that can indicate that we are giving direction to the general manager of the mta to provide the contract to have the wraps capped at 15? >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. it's an unusual situation, supervisor. i don't think, though, an appropriate motion to vote on
6:43 pm
other than the supervisors stating what each of you, i suppose, sick of you, what your intention is. ~ six of you another intention is to vote on the resolution with the contract as is, and if that fails then move it, then continuing the conversation with -- with the department. >> okay. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. through the chair, my question is to the maker of the motion to supervisor mar. i wanted to just get a better understanding of the significance of 15. how did you come to that number? >> well, that's the status quo right now we've had for several years. my understanding from the mta is they've never gone that high in the history of the contract and i don't see right now any reason to extend it to 30 because i think that would
6:44 pm
increase the number of -- i did say in the committee that i actually despised the wrapped around the windows type advertising because as some said in the budget committee, it cheapens the city when you have stuff like this driving around the city. and if we're doubling up on a mcdonald's wrapped mta bus around our city, i think it gives us a sense that we're a city for sale. i think sf beautiful and the harvey milk club and others made it very articulated it really well that it's a compromise because we know we need the funds that supervisor breed mentioned about not expanding it or doubling it is a question. and i am okay with keeping it at the status quo, not expanding the digital advertising as well, which could lead to more traffic conflicts and just distractions of drivers, especially right now as we're expanding our vision zero efforts in the city. so, that's why i strongly urge keeping at the status quo and i think it's a reasonable
6:45 pm
contract if we keep it at that. >> thank you very much. to the director, the finance person, so, the argument is to keep the contract -- the number of buses he wrapped at a cap of 15 and supervisor breed has propose today making it to 30, that increase. is there a business argument as to the difference as to how you would spend that money or where it would be invested? >> so, the -- our budget is based on the minimum annual guarantee. to the extent that there are revenues that come in beyond the minimal annual guarantee, [speaker not understood] the general revenues of the agency so they'd be available for a shortfall and any other revenue line. otherwise if they're above and beyond the revenues that we've
6:46 pm
had budgeted, they would drop to our fund balance in a future year. and excess revenues that drop to our fund balance mean less money that we need to put in our reserve which means more money available for service. that is in part how we were able to include in this year's budget a service increase because of excess revenues in previous year. >> so, i, too, think i share the general sentiment that i don't like -- i ride the bus and i don't like to be on the bus looking out the windows through the wrapping. i don't like that. but when i think about balancing my priorities, i am more moved by the notion of free muni for youth and even expanding that into -- for seniors. so, what i'm concerned about is do i need to bite the bullet and increase the cap so that i can ensure that there is a trade-off to where seniors and youth are able to ride for free on muni.
6:47 pm
so, that's the discussion i'm looking to have at the board here, not for you the director, but with the colleagues to better understand if it's 15 or if it's 30 or maybe it's 28, 28 is the cap, we raise the status quo and lower what the original proposal is offering. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. i don't know how else to articulate [speaker not understood]. as i mentioned in committee last week my concern was over the digital ads. i appreciate the mta taking those out. i think maybe it's a matter of taste but those are the ones that bother me the most. when we talk about driver safety, those are the ones that bother me. i think as we hear about all the accidents on the roads nowadays and just look next to you if you're ever in a car the amount of people texting while they're driving is crazy in the
6:48 pm
city. the wrap ads, to be quite frank, they don't bother me as much. i think up to 30 is really kind of comparative to the fleet minuscule amount of buses. revenue is obviously at a premium especially mta when they continue to be underfunded. there are budget choices that continue to be made at the mta some we agree with some which we don't. [speaker not understood]. to me the digital ads were the most important. so, i thought i'd just put my voice where i feel. i'm okay with the 30, i'm also okay with 15 as well. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i just wanted -- supervisor mar mentioned that they have not, i guess, reached the 15 mark level and i just wanted to clarify that actually during the holiday season, that's traditionally when there is an increase in the number of wraps. of course it's a supply and demand thing. it's based on whether or not something is happening. we have a lot of great large events that are coming to
6:49 pm
satisfy. next year i think the, what is it, super bowl thing that's happening -- [laughter] >> everybody is going to be in san francisco. i mean, i'm thinking of like, you know, the thing that -- again, it's not as if i'm not a fan. i don't like wraps period. i'm a arts lover. i love art, i love beauty. it's just that i think it's a good business choice for the city in order to generate revenue and to have the flexibility. i am generating that level of revenue. i do think we should give mta the flexibility. so, rather than come back to the board every time they want to increase the number for whatever reason, we should allow them the flexibility to use a discretion. i don't think 30 is unreasonable. i think we should move forward with this contract as is with the digital signs removed, with the 30 number and if we need to revisit this contract at any other time, i mean, we have
6:50 pm
five years to take a look at it. so, or if we have a problem with it, i'm sure we can bring mr. reiskin and his team up for a hearing to discuss why this is not working for the city. so, i just think we need to move forward and make a decision and i think it financially would be beneficial for us to do so, the contract as it is now. thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i along a we're going around, i do think we can amend the resolution and say the board authorizes sfmta to go through with this contract with a maximum of 15 wraps and then it's then up to the mta to execute that contract or not. but if we're not going to debate that, i do support this item at a maximum of 15 wraps. on a bus, i think that we have heard a lot from our community in terms of the limitations and advertisementses that they want to see on our public transit and i agree with that. i appreciate the conversation
6:51 pm
around mta's budget. we have currently secured funding for low-income youth, so, that is not on the table. that is funded privately now. so, that has been included at mta's budget. if mta was to come out and say they would support free muni for low-income seniors and disability, he if he we can approve 30 wraps i'm happy to support 30 wraps today, but i don't think that is the commitment being made today nor do the 15 wraps cover the cost of free muni for low-income seniors and disabled. if i'm wrong about that, director reiskin, i'm happy to hear a commitment today for free muni for low-income seniors and disabled. >> supervisor yee. might as well join the chorus here. if director reiskin [speaker not understood], i would also support the expansion.
6:52 pm
if not, then i imagine if you go up to 20 i'd feel comfortable with that. that alone would be a 33% increase. but if the majority of the sentiment is at 15, i'll go along with that. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. my -- let me i guess make the suggestion. my understanding is that if we approve the resolution but that there is a clear majority of the board saying that we want the limit to be 15, that that's what would happen. as i understand it, director reiskin? >> that's correct. >> okay. with that in mind, i would sort of like to be counted as one of the 11 who would want to see a limit of 15 so that you have that. i just wanted to be on the record as saying that and i know there are a number of others who are in the same boat. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i just wanted to give director reiskin an opportunity to come and speak to some of the proposals -- well, let me be
6:53 pm
clear. my suggestion and supervisor kim's suggestion, i think supervisor breed also is on board. if you can come on board and say, hey, we'll be able to extend passes to low-income youth and seniors and to supervisor kim's point, yes, free muni passes for youth has been granted. but correct me if i'm wrong. that's a two-year commitment. i'm thinking long term beyond that. so, if there is a way for us to capture this it and codify it or i guess memorialize it in a contract i think we can do that. sounds like we might even be able to get up to 20. supervisor yee was throwing out 20. so, what do you say? >> through the chair, this is not a negotiation that i would be authorized to execute on the spot here. what i can tell you is what is in the mta board approved budget that i presented last wednesday in this chamber with
6:54 pm
regard to free muni for youth. you are correct, supervisor cohen that the funding is there only for two years. however, the mta board i think has made it fairly clear that they intend that program to continue. they removed all pilot language and had an additional policy declaration that it was an intent to prioritize funding for that program moving forward. so, i think we do consider that to be a permanent program for it beyond two years. it is something we would have to balance two years hence. with regard to free muni for low-income and seniors with disabilities, the board put it into the budget. along with a list of other items made implementation contingent on a fiscal review of the agency in january 2015. however, the board also, as a board, affirmatively act today
6:55 pm
say the top priority for funding for all those things on that contingent list is the free muni for low and moderate income seniors and people with disabilities and further directed the mta staff to begin work now to develop that program so that, should we come out of that review with the authorization from the board to execute it, that we would be able to do so as soon as possible. so, that's what's in the budget. i can't negotiate outside of that, but i think it's a fairly strong statement from the mta board on that issue. >> further discussion, colleagues? supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee, did you have a comment? president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. i think part of the challenge with this conversation is we don't have actual motions that
6:56 pm
we have in front of us to be able to vote on. we're all expressing our perspective on this. let me first start by thanking sf beautiful and [speaker not understood]. i don't believe there is anyone here that believes these wraps are esthetically something any of us support or feel good about. that being said, colleagues, money doesn't grow on trees. muni is woefully underfunded. our muni buses are late 40% of the time. our pedestrians, our cyclists on our roads are in some of the most dangerous intersections in the state. and we want to add to that because many of us support free muni for youth and free muni for other constituencies and we are having a conversation around blf [speaker not understood]. from my perspective thinking about whether 1-1/2% of our buses or 2, 2-1/2% of our buses ought to be -- ought to have advertising, it just doesn't feel like that big a deal if we are already doing that.
6:57 pm
if we could come to a rounded number, i would prefer that. i think that number is probably 20. if we're having an either/or conversation i am prepared to support what has been proposed by the sfmta today. >> so, president chiu, there is a motion on the table that i made to cap it at 15. but if you want to make a counterproposal, would you like to make a counterproposal? >> as i said, i would be okay with the status quo contract. but if we need to get to a place of being able to move this forward, i would -- i'd probably support 20. >> supervisor breed. >> at this time i think we should either vote the contract up or down from my understanding from a legal standpoint. >> supervisor campos. >> a question for the city attorney. given that i think you indicated that supervisor mar's motion could not be made, i'm wondering what the best way to proceed here.
6:58 pm
should there be maybe a straw pole in terms of how many are for 15 or is there 20 or 30? i don't know if you have any advice here, but i think that we're going around in circles. >> right, i think the two clearest options from my perspective are, number one, to, to vote on the contract as proposed, as supervisor breed proposed. option 2 is mr. reiskin could offer another alternative contract that the board could accept and then vote on. in terms of the procedural possibility of a straw poll, i would defer to the clerk on how you could do that. >> so, just a quick question. if we voted -- if, for instance, you think that the number should not be higher than where it presently is,
6:59 pm
then i would imagine the best approach would be to vote no on the resolution. would that be correct? >> if you would like to have the number be 15 and currently the number is proposed at 30 and you voted no and there were 6 nos, the board could then rescind that vote and, and the director could, could submit another contract report consideration. >> colleagues, i might suggest we take that path. why don't we vote on the contract as it is and if that fails, we rescind that vote and our director can -- we can see how low he he will go. so, unless there is any further discussion, let's take a roll call vote on the contract as it has been proposed. madam clerk. >> on item 8, supervisor yee? excuse me, mr. president. on item . supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos. >> this is on 30? >> yes. >> no. >> avalos no.
7:00 pm
~ 9 >> supervisor breed? breed no. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim no. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener no. there are 6 ayes and 5 no's. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> colleagues, i think we have one 2:30 special order -- i'm sorry, we have two. i'd like to first acknowledge supervisor mar from district 1. >> thank you, president chiu. i'm just seeing if our honoree is here, and she is. colleagues, later today i'll introduce items on our agenda or i'll introduce item on youth empowerment in our